Dataset Information

The heart transplant allocation change attenuates but does not eliminate blood group O waitlist outcome disadvantage.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with blood group O have historically been disadvantaged in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart transplant allocation system. We sought to determine whether the new UNOS allocation system implemented in 2018 had an impact on waitlist and post-transplant outcomes among blood groups.

Methods

Using the UNOS database we included all adult patients listed and transplanted with first-time single-organ heart transplant between 10/17/15 and 10/1/21. For post-transplant outcomes, we separately evaluated all adult patients transplanted with the same time-frame. We used exclusion criteria and censoring to limit biases from changing clinical practices around the allocation change (10/18/2018), and from unequal or inadequate follow-up. We compared clinical characteristics and outcomes before and after the allocation change among each blood group. Fine-Gray and Cox regression models were used to estimate the effect of the new allocation system on competing waitlist outcomes- transplantation, death-or-removal from waitlist- and post-transplant survival, respectively.

Results

Of the 21,565 patients listed for transplantation 14,000 met criteria for waitlist analysis (7,035 in the old system vs. 6,965 in the new), and 7,657 met criteria for post-transplant analysis (3,519 in the old system vs. 4,138 in the new). Among each blood group, new allocation change was associated with higher transplantation rates lower waitlist days and lower waitlist mortality (except Group AB). However, despite improvements, Group O was still associated with worse waitlist outcomes for each metric compared to non-O Groups. The new allocation system did not have a significant impact on post-transplant survival among any blood groups.

Conclusion

Changes in heart transplant allocation have attenuated but not eliminated blood group O disadvantage in access to donor hearts.

SUBMITTER: Patel JN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9285771 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Liver allocation in the United States was updated on February 4, 2020, by introducing the acuity circle (AC)-based model. This study evaluated the early effects of the AC-based allocation on waitlist outcomes.MethodsAdult liver transplant (LT) candidates listed between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021, were assessed. Two periods were defined according to listing date (pre- and post-AC), and 90-d waitlist outcomes were compared. Median transplant Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of each transplant center was calculated, with centers categorized as low- (<25 percentile), mid- (25-75 percentile), and high-MELD (>75 percentile) centers.ResultsA total of 12 421 and 17 078 LT candidates in the pre- and post-AC eras were identified. Overall, the post-AC era was associated with higher cause-specific 90-d hazards of transplant (csHR, 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.38; P < 0.001) and waitlist mortality (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.32; P < 0.001). The latter effect was primarily driven by high-MELD centers. Low-MELD centers had a higher proportion of donations after circulatory death (DCDs) used. Compared with low-MELD centers, mid-MELD and high-MELD centers had significantly lower cause-specific hazards of DCD-LT in both eras (mid-MELD: csHR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.38-0.59 in pre-AC and csHR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67 in post-AC and high-MELD: csHR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.07-0.17 in pre-AC and csHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.10-0.20 in post-AC; all P < 0.001). Using a structural Bayesian time-series model, the AC policy was associated with an increase in the actual monthly DCD-LTs in low-, mid-, and high-MELD centers (actual/predicted: low-MELD: 19/16; mid-MELD: 21/14; high-MELD: 4/3), whereas the increase in monthly donation after brain death-LTs were only present in mid- and high-MELD centers.ConclusionsAlthough AC-based allocation may improve waitlist outcomes, regional variation exists in the drivers of such outcomes between centers.

Project description:ImportanceUnder the current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services guidelines, there is incentivization to optimize posttransplant outcomes regardless of mortality among patients on the waitlist and transplant rates; few data exist with regard to transplant center acceptance practices and survival to heart transplant.ObjectivesTo evaluate the extent of variability in organ acceptance practices in the US and whether this center-level behavior is associated with heart transplant candidate survival.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, the US National Transplant Registry was queried for all match runs of adult candidates listed for isolated heart transplant between May 1, 2007, and March 31, 2017. Data analysis was conducted from October 30, 2018, to May 1, 2019. The final cohort included 93 transplant centers, 19 703 donors, and 9628 candidates.Main outcomes and measuresCenter acceptance rates for heart allografts offered to the highest-priority candidates, association between center acceptance rate and mortality among patients on the waitlist, and posttransplant outcomes between candidates who accepted their first-rank offers vs those who accepted previously declined offers.ResultsAmong 19 703 unique organ offers, 6302 hearts (32.0%) were accepted for first-rank candidates. After adjustment for donor, candidate, and geographic covariates, transplant centers varied in acceptance rates (12.3%-61.5%) of offers made to first-rank candidates. Higher acceptance rates were associated with lower cumulative incidence of 1-year mortality among patients on the waitlist. For every 10% increase in adjusted center acceptance rate, the risk of mortality decreased by 27% (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.80). No statistically significant difference was observed in 5-year adjusted posttransplant patient survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.11) and graft failure (subdistribution hazard ratio; 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.09) between hearts accepted at the first-rank compared with lower-rank positions.Conclusions and relevanceVariability in heart allograft acceptance rates appears to exist among transplant centers, with candidates listed at lower acceptance rate centers being more likely to experience mortality while on the waitlist. Comparable posttransplant survival suggests that allografts that were declined as a first offer perform as well as those that were accepted at their first offer. These findings suggest that organ acceptance rate or time to transplant from being added to the waitlist may be an additional measure of heart transplant program performance.